Protesters in Ukraine remind us of the priceless benefits of being EU members

[Hammer2722]

Sleepless Kharkiv. People come up to the Russian embassy
 
 
Ahhhh, where would I be without my daily dose of your Russian propaganda? 

[krimster2]

since most, if not all of Crimea’s electric power comes from Ukraine, how long do you think the lights are going to be on??  If they’re turned off, how many years do you think it’ll take for Russia to build new generating plants and transmission lines to reach Crimea?

if Crimea adopts Russia’s visa policies for western tourists, what will the impact be on the tourism industry overall?  what about foreign students at Simferopol State University?

since the (relatively) new “hypermarket” supermarkets in Sevastopol are owned by companies in Kiev, what will happen if they pull out of Sevastopol, what if all Kiev owned businesses decide to leave, what will the impact be on the local economy?

what if Kiev stops paying pensions and salaries to people in Crimea, will Russians pay instead, if they do, how long will the transition take, what will the effect be on the local economy?

If all Ukrainian military and civil personnel and their families leave Crimea, what will the impact be on the local economy?

Will Russia confiscate all Ukrainian oligarch owned property in Crimea, if so, what will Ukraine do in response?

If Russia decides to make Sevastopol a closed city again, what will the effect be on the local economy?

What if Ukrainian owned banks like Ukrsots bank decide to close down and freeze depositer’s accounts, what will the effect be on the local economy?

There are over 260,000 Tatars in Crimea, who are Sunni Muslim, the same as Chechen and Dagestan Muslims, if they are now forced to be part of Russia, is there any potential for civil war like Chechnya? If so, what will the effect be on the local economy?

Since natural gas prices in Crimea are kept artificially low by NaftyGaz paying about 65% of the price, and residents of Russia now pay full price, will Crimeans pay full price like other residential and business consumers in Russia, if so what will the effect be on the local economy?

In addition, since Crimea’s current gas pipelines pass through Ukraine, what would happen if it these pipelines were blocked by Ukraine, how long would it take Russia to build  new pipeline to Crimea,  what will the effect be on the local economy?






 

[Hammer2722]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26435333

[fathertime]

Just looks like hypocrisy...mascaraing as diplomacy on both sides.  I wonder what is REALLY said between these 'diplomats'  We (the general public) probably don't know as much as we think. 


How can the USA think they should put sanctions on Russia, when they (we) are guilty of fomenting and supplying weaponry to the Syrian rebels?  Assad is their leader.  Nobody put sanctions on us.  My feeling continues to remain that our only role here is to facilitate and throw our hands up, and help try to get the greater part of Ukraine the best deal we can. 


It is ridiculous for Russia to think people are going to believe that 'white supremacists' are any significant % and are going to start killing ethnic Russians and that they are only there to protect.  It seems obvious to me that they are just laying claim to Crimea because they want it/need it and feel it is theirs. 


9/10 of the law is possession and Russia has got that.  If we are going to intrude on all parts of the globe, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be caught so flat-footed as we were in this case.   I can see many reasonable solutions, but the Russians may feel the only reasonable solution is them taking and holding Crimea..  As I review the situation, it kinda looks like it is a historical oddity that Crimea is in Ukraine to begin with.   So what is the great harm if the majority of the Crimean people want independence from Ukraine and Russia helps facilitate that.    I seem to recall in our own civil war (US) the majority of Southerners wanted to succeed and instead of being allowed to do that, they got their asses whooped, so I conclude sometimes it takes a radical intervention to make these things happen. 


Fathertime! 

[jone]

Yup, FT, the Southerners wanted to SUCCEED.

[fathertime]

Yup, FT, the Southerners wanted to SUCCEED.

hehe...chu got dis illiterate dog there old boy! 


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

Estonian minister says sniper's bullets did not come from Yanukovych's guns

http://russian.rt.com/article/23679?fb_action_ids=473790496056206&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Just looks like hypocrisy...mascaraing as diplomacy on both sides.  I wonder what is REALLY said between these 'diplomats'  We (the general public) probably don't know as much as we think. 


How can the USA think they should put sanctions on Russia, when they (we) are guilty of fomenting and supplying weaponry to the Syrian rebels?  Assad is their leader.  Nobody put sanctions on us.  My feeling continues to remain that our only role here is to facilitate and throw our hands up, and help try to get the greater part of Ukraine the best deal we can. 


It is ridiculous for Russia to think people are going to believe that 'white supremacists' are any significant % and are going to start killing ethnic Russians and that they are only there to protect.  It seems obvious to me that they are just laying claim to Crimea because they want it/need it and feel it is theirs. 


9/10 of the law is possession and Russia has got that.  If we are going to intrude on all parts of the globe, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be caught so flat-footed as we were in this case.   I can see many reasonable solutions, but the Russians may feel the only reasonable solution is them taking and holding Crimea..  As I review the situation, it kinda looks like it is a historical oddity that Crimea is in Ukraine to begin with.   So what is the great harm if the majority of the Crimean people want independence from Ukraine and Russia helps facilitate that.    I seem to recall in our own civil war (US) the majority of Southerners wanted to succeed and instead of being allowed to do that, they got their asses whooped, so I conclude sometimes it takes a radical intervention to make these things happen. 


Fathertime!

So next time someone comes and takes your stuff, possession is 9/10's of the law.  Crimea belongs to Ukraine not Russia.

[fathertime]

 

So next time someone comes and takes your stuff, possession is 9/10's of the law.  Crimea belongs to Ukraine not Russia.



Living in California if something of mine was stolen, I wouldn't expect assistance from a fire department in Hawaii,


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

So what exactly gives Putin the right to seize Ukraine?

[fathertime]

So what exactly gives Putin the right to seize Ukraine?

I don’t think he has the ‘right’ to seize it….but he has done it anyway, regardless of the consequences.  I don’t see his forces moving, unless he gets the deal he wants which probably isn't very likely.  I don’t see any outside countries caring enough to risk war over Crimea under these circumstances where much of Crimea is probably on Putin’s side or at least not against him. 


Fathertime!   

[lordtiberius]

More American Propaganda Fathertime?  Perhaps this is another Banker-Jew Conspiracy for our libertarian friends who have taken leave of their sense in favor of medicinal uses:

[fathertime]

More American Propaganda Fathertime?  Perhaps this is another Banker-Jew Conspiracy for our libertarian friends who have taken leave of their sense in favor of medicinal uses:

  I  don't follow what propaganda you are referring to? 


From my perspective there are at least two sides to this whole story...and tons of misinformation coming from every angle.




One thing I find incredibly odd is  that Ukraine was allowed to have possession of those nuclear weapons after the collapse.  Russia should have been immediately seizing them (even if it would have taken months to get them all back) and taking them to where they could be secured.  I don't think that anybody should have been forced to make a deal to get them back.

Fathertime! 
 

[lordtiberius]

  I  don't follow what propaganda you are referring to? 


From my perspective there are at least two sides to this whole story...and tons of misinformation coming from every angle.




One thing I find incredibly odd is  that Ukraine was allowed to have possession of those nuclear weapons after the collapse.  Russia should have been immediately seizing them (even if it would have taken months to get them all back) and taking them to where they could be secured.  I don't think that anybody should have been forced to make a deal to get them back.

Fathertime! 

Having lived in the Middle East, I agree with you that the Syria war was US aggression in defense of the MB and that the gas attack was lies.  Putin won.

But Putin is not winning this one.



Here are his NAZIs.

We are entering into a new age of Ukrainian-Polish dominance and a receding Russian influence. Take the WSJ:



They picked Putin.

This is old news and faulty analysis. Putin miscalculated. This is not looking like a war or invasion but now an eviction. Putin cannot invade Ukraine because he doesn't have the logistical support. He does not want to face an active insurgency when he does capture some territory. He cannot alienate his customers. He cannot defend the pipelines that must deliver his product to his customers and the Russian speaking Ukrainians don't like him. This will humiliate him and he will be in exile probably within the year.

[JayH]

In TV programs from the Crimea "lit" FSB of Russia - the source of the SBU




In the Security Service of Ukraine claim that a former employee of department recognized the story from the Crimea, which was aired in the "breaking news" Constantine Stohniya March 4, officers of the Federal Security Service of Russia. "In the story, concerning the Russian occupation of the Crimean peninsula, one of the recognized "Russian KGB" of which overlap in 2007-2008 in Transnistria, "- said a source in the Security Service of Radio Liberty. According to the source, it is about Andrew Y. Chechel who is a citizen of Russia, and in Transnistria was as a military observer with the Russian army group. Then, according to the source, Chechel was "osobistom in extraordinary circumstances", that is the FSB of Russia in the army, which is foreign territory. According to the SBU, the man now in the Crimea performs the same mission, namely controls and conducts special operations reconnoiter on the territory of Ukraine under the guise of soldiers.

[JayH]

President Putin's fiction: 10 false claims about Ukraine


 As Russia spins a false narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine, the world has not seen such startling Russian fiction since Dostoyevsky wrote, “The formula ‘two plus two equals five’ is not without its attractions.”

Below are 10 of President Vladimir Putin’s recent claims justifying Russian aggression in the Ukraine, followed by the facts that his assertions ignore or distort.

 1. Mr. Putin says: Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets. It is “citizens’ defense groups,” not Russian forces, who have seized infrastructure and military facilities in Crimea.

The Facts: Strong evidence suggests that members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear uniforms without insignia, they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by the international media and the Ukrainian military. Moreover, these individuals are armed with weapons not generally available to civilians.

2. Mr. Putin says: Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

The Facts: The 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which have given them operational control of Crimea, are in clear violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

3. Mr. Putin says: The opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The Facts: The February 21 agreement laid out a plan in which the Rada, or Parliament, would pass a bill to return Ukraine to its 2004 Constitution, thus returning the country to a constitutional system centered around its parliament. Under the terms of the agreement, Yanukovych was to sign the enacting legislation within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. Yanukovych refused to keep his end of the bargain. Instead, he packed up his home and fled, leaving behind evidence of wide-scale corruption.

4. Mr. Putin says: Ukraine’s government is illegitimate. Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine.'

The Facts: On March 4, President Putin himself acknowledged the reality that Yanukovych “has no political future.” After Yanukovych fled Ukraine, even his own Party of Regions turned against him, voting to confirm his withdrawal from office and to support the new government. Ukraine’s new government was approved by the democratically elected Ukrainian Parliament, with 371 votes – more than an 82% majority. The interim government of Ukraine is a government of the people, which will shepherd the country toward democratic elections on May 25th – elections that will allow all Ukrainians to have a voice in the future of their country.

5. Mr. Putin says: There is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

The Facts: To date, there is absolutely no evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Nor is there evidence of a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia. International organizations on the ground have investigated by talking with Ukrainian border guards, who also refuted these claims. Independent journalists observing the border have also reported no such flood of refugees.

6. Mr. Putin says: Ethnic Russians are under threat.

The Facts: Outside of Russian press and Russian state television, there are no credible reports of any ethnic Russians being under threat. The new Ukrainian government placed a priority on peace and reconciliation from the outset. President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign legislation limiting the use of the Russian language at regional level. Ethnic Russians and Russian speakers have filed petitions attesting that their communities have not experienced threats. Furthermore, since the new government was established, calm has returned to Kyiv. There has been no surge in crime, no looting, and no retribution against political opponents.

7. Mr. Putin says: Russian bases are under threat.

The Facts: Russian military facilities were and remain secure, and the new Ukrainian government has pledged to abide by all existing international agreements, including those covering Russian bases. It is Ukrainian bases in Crimea that are under threat from Russian military action.

8. Mr. Putin says: There have been mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine.

The Facts: Religious leaders in the country and international religious freedom advocates active in Ukraine have said there have been no incidents of attacks on churches. All of Ukraine’s church leaders, including representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, have expressed support for the new political leadership, calling for national unity and a period of healing. Jewish groups in southern and eastern Ukraine report that they have not seen an increase in anti-Semitic incidents.

9. Mr. Putin says: Kyiv is trying to destabilize Crimea.

The Facts: Ukraine’s interim government has acted with restraint and sought dialogue. Russian troops, on the other hand, have moved beyond their bases to seize political objectives and infrastructure in Crimea. The government in Kyiv immediately sent the former Chief of Defense to defuse the situation. Petro Poroshenko, the latest government emissary to pursue dialogue in Crimea, was prevented from entering the Crimean Rada.

10. Mr. Putin says: The Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

The Facts: The Rada is the most representative institution in Ukraine. Recent legislation has passed with large majorities, including from representatives of eastern Ukraine. Far-right wing ultranationalist groups, some of which were involved in open clashes with security forces during the EuroMaidan protests, are not represented in the Rada. There is no indication that the Ukrainian government would pursue discriminatory policies; on the contrary, they have publicly stated exactly the opposite.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/president-putins-fiction-10-false-claims-about-ukraine-338527.html

[JayH]

Pentagon sending fighter jets to boost NATO presence amid Ukraine                                          March 05,

 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel addresses the media after a meeting of NATO defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels.AP
WASHINGTON –  The U.S. military is boosting its NATO presence in a bid to support the defenses of U.S. allies in Europe in response to Russia's takeover of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.

After Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel first alluded to the effort during testimony on Capitol Hill earlier Wednesday morning, a Defense official confirmed that the U.S. will send six additional F-15s and one KC-135 to "augment the mission" in Baltic countries.

The U.S. currently provides four F-15s to what's known as the Baltic Air Policing rotation. The additional aircraft will be sent from a base in Britain to Siauliai Air Base in Lithuania, the official said.

"This action comes at the request of our Baltic Allies and further demonstrates our commitment to NATO security," the official said.

In addition, the official said the Pentagon is now "consulting" with Polish allies on "increasing activities" in connection with a separate detachment mission in that country. Poland currently hosts 10 U.S. Air Force personnel as part of joint aviation training work.

Speaking during a press conference in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry described these decisions as "concrete steps to reassure our NATO allies." Obama administration officials continue to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin to "de-escalate" and have not confirmed that any military options are on the table at this point.

In his remarks earlier Wednesday, Hagel focused on U.S. diplomatic and aid efforts since Moscow's invasion into Ukrainian territory. He said he'd speak later Wednesday with Ukraine's new defense minister; Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey spoke to his Russian counterpart earlier in the day. Neither Hagel nor Dempsey mentioned military options.

"I urge continued restraint to reserve room for a diplomatic solution," Dempsey told the Senate panel.

While the hearing was supposed to focus on the military's budget, both witnesses quickly addressed the ongoing events in Ukraine.

Since last weekend, Russian troops have taken control of much of the peninsula in the Black Sea, where Russian speakers are in the majority. Moscow doesn't recognize the Ukrainian leadership that came to power after protesters ousted the country's pro-Russian president last month. It has cited strategic interests as well as the protection of ethnic Russians in making its case for intervention.

Hagel said the U.S. was reaffirming its commitment to allies in Central and Eastern Europe, some of whom spent decades in the last century under Soviet domination. European countries are grappling with their own response to the crisis, fearful about moves reminiscent of Russia's Cold War policy of regional hegemony but equally concerned about damaging trade and energy partnerships vital to their economies.

The United States assumed control over NATO's air policing duties over Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in January. Belgium previously had the four-month rotating duty. The mission "not only protects the integrity of NATO airspace, it illustrates the alliance's core function of collective defense," the 28-nation bloc said in a statement at the time.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/05/hagel-says-us-stepping-up-support-to-nato-allies-in-europe-amid-ukraine-crisis/

[JayH]

Ukrainian military abandoning bases in Crimea after being warned they are now “enemy combatants”
6 HOURS AGO MARCH 07, 2014 4:41AM
Ukraine military abandon posts
Warned they are now “occupiers”
Crimean parliament votes to join Russia
‘Gravest threat to European security since Cold War’


Under the red flag ... the presence of Russian troops in the Crimea has been criticised by world leaders. Picture: Ella
UKRAINIAN military in Crimea appear to be abandoning their bases after their own local government declared them enemy combatants and warned them to surrender now and leave the region.
In the space of an afternoon, they had become the enemy at their own gate.
In an extraordinary development to the crisis now politically engulfing most of Europe, troops at some barracks across the Crimea were heeding the warning and walking out of barracks through blockades of Russian troops and laughing local “self defence” units.
The move came after the declaration from their own people that they were now considered “occupiers”, delivered by the Crimea Deputy Prime minister Rustam Temirgaliev.
He went further and said they could switch sides and don Russian military uniforms and take Russian citizenship, or just surrender and leave the “Russian state”.
“If they do not agree, we are prepared to offer them safe passage from the territory of Crimea to their Ukrainian homeland,” he said.
Ukraine troops flee Crimea bases
Crisis ... A Ukrainian border guard stands at the international Goptovka border checkpoint "Goptovka" in the Kharkiv region. Ukrainian military are abandoning bases after being declared enemy combatants in Crimea. Source: AFP
UKRAINE: Eight key issues about this conflict
The move has caused significant concern on the streets for outright war, a fear supported by a threat from Kiev that it was now supporting a military response to the escalation of the crisis.
Mr Temirgaliev’s words came after the Crimean Parliament also voted unanimously in favour of the autonomous Ukrainian state becoming part of Russia.
A formal referendum to break away from Ukraine will be put to the region’s two million inhabitants, the majority of whom speak Russian, on March 16.
Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko slammed the plan, saying it would be illegitimate and unconstitutional.
“I would like to ask you whether one can have an open, fair and democratic referendum under Kalashnikov guns?’’ Tymoshenko told reporters in Dublin at a convention of the European People’s Party (EPP).
“Who will count ballots? Who will insure that the people’s free will was reflected? That’s why this so-called referendum is illegitimate.’’
Ukraine ‘not a colony’ ... Yulia Tymoshenko addresses the media at the European People's
Ukraine ‘not a colony’ ... Yulia Tymoshenko addresses the media at the European People's Party (EPP) Congress in Dublin. Picture: Peter Muhly Source: AFP
She said the referendum was violating Ukraine’s constitution as any territorial question must be decided by a national vote.
“The Kremlin must understand that Ukraine is a state and not a territory,’’ she said, delivering her speech in a wheelchair because of chronic back problems.
“Ukraine is a sovereign nation that is free to join Europe. It is not a colony that will be driven into a cage.’’
US President Barack Obama said the Crimean referendum would violate Ukraine’s constitution and international law.
Mr Obama spoke hours after the United States imposed visa bans on certain senior Russian officials and moved towards wider sanctions against individuals and entities in Moscow, to punish the Kremlin’s incursion into Ukraine.
Show of force ... Russian soldiers in their encampment near Perevalnoye Ukrainian Army Ba
Show of force ... Russian soldiers in their encampment near Perevalnoye Ukrainian Army Base. Picture: Ella Pellegrini Source: News Corp Australia
“The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law,’’ Mr Obama told reporters at the White House.
“Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government of Ukraine,’’ Mr Obama said.
“In 2014, we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”
Crimea’s parliament has already said all citizens would become Russian citizens and the region would adopt the Russian rouble currency. Around 80 per cent of the population is expected to vote in favour of joining Russia.
No entry ... locals have been refused access to the base. Picture: Ella Pellegrini
No entry ... locals have been refused access to the base. Picture: Ella Pellegrini Source: News Corp Australia
The interim government in Ukraine capital Kiev has declared the referendum illegal as well as the vote and launched a criminal investigation against the region’s Prime Minister Sergei Askyonov.
That came after both the US and EU leaders said Russia would face sanctions over its military incursion unless it withdrew its troops and engaged in talks with the interim government in capital Kiev.
Germany and some countries bordering Russia said however there were many diplomatic avenues to pursue before that ultimatum came to pass.
Divided...People waving Russian flags cheer after the Sevastopol regional council votes t
Divided ... People waving Russian flags cheer after the Sevastopol regional council votes to support Crimea’s plan to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Source: Getty Images
To raise tensions further, the United States confirmed its guided missile destroyer USS Truxton would today depart Greece for naval operations in the Black Sea for routine and pre-planned exercise with allies Bulgaria and Romania.
The exercise may have been pre-planned but it is a symbolic act of defiance to match that of the Kremlin which used its pre-planned exercises to softly invade Ukraine’s south.
The Russian fleet is already in the Black Sea where it has blocked the entrance to the harbour of Sevastopol, preventing the Ukrainian fleet from leaving.
Instead, authorities have demanded they hand over their personal weapons — which they have — and surrender, which they so far have refused to do.
Fresh appeals today by NATO’s Secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen for Russia to pull its forces out were being roundly ignored.
Increasing presence ... Alleged Russian soldiers at the Perevalnoye Ukrainian Army Base.
Increasing presence ... Alleged Russian soldiers at the Perevalnoye Ukrainian Army Base. Picture: Ella Pellegrini Source: News Corp Australia
“This crisis has serious implications for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area as a whole.
“We clearly face the gravest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War,” Mr Rasmussen said.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the government was in talks about how world leaders should react to Russia’s “blatant aggression”.
“We’re talking to our friends and allies about what should be done to check this blatant aggression by Russia against a neighbour that had done it no harm,” he said.
Today a confused picture exists within the Ukrainian military with Russian troops leaving some Ukrainian bases but apparently bolstering others.
When News Corp went to a Russian encampment at the foothills of Perevalnoye, south of Crimea’s capital Simferopol, Russian troops were erecting tents and field kitchens and its parked convoy of troop-carrying trucks and armoured personnel vehicles had visibly increased from previous days.
Some Ukrainian forces were seen to leave the barracks, some in uniform, a larger number in civilian clothes, as wives and girlfriends appealed to Russian forces and local self defence units to let them visit loved ones inside. They were refused.
Not happy...A child cries as a Russian Cossack places a traditional Cossack hat on her ou
Not happy ... A child cries as a Russian Cossack places a traditional Cossack hat on her outside of the Simferopol parliament building, which they surrounded in a show of support for Russia. Source: Getty Images
A group of Orthodox priests armed with crucifixes also attempted to enter a golden domed church adjoining the barracks but were refused in lengthy heated exchanges.
“All we want to do is pray in the church but they said such an act of going into the church would be provocative,” Father Alexander told News Corporation.
“How can prayer be provocative and me a provocateur. A friend’s son, also a priest is in there and we want to pray with him. We were also at the Maidan (independence Sq) in Kiev two weeks ago praying for all sides.”
Power of prayer ... Orthodox priest Alexander travelled to Perevalnoye Military Base from
Power of prayer ... Orthodox priest Alexander travelled to Perevalnoye Military Base from far away north to pray in the church inside the base but was turned away. Picture: Ella Pellegrini Source: News Corp Australia
The group of priests had travelled 800km from the Poltava region to the camp.
There were many heated exchanges between the so called local “self defence” unit, a menacing group of local men, and others appealing for them to remember that Ukraine was “glorious” and to not follow Russia.
At Sevastopol naval headquarters, Russian troops also appeared to have been diminished with gates now largely guarded by other local defence units.
“In our house we do not want to destroy each other, we are here for peace not war,” Russian-born local Alexander said.
“May these days have sunshine, may these days have the love of mummy and may these days have me and everyone happy.”
Orthodox priests were a presence in the Kiev protests and again now in the Crimea. Pictur
Orthodox priests were a presence in the Kiev protests and again now in the Crimea. Picture: Ella Pellegrini Source: News Corp Australia
In Crimea’s northwest at Yevpatoriya, Ukrainian forces had again raised their flags over their bases including high above fortified radar installations which was heavily guarded by dozens of Ukrainian forces with a large military vehicle blocking the entry gates.
Down the road at another naval base a Russian flag was flying but the gates were not manned. At the missile defence base of Cape Fiolent its Ukrainian deputy commander Yevgenii Pukhkiy described how the heavily armed Russian troops, who he conceded how better weaponry than his own men, had been there for days but left yesterday in the middle of the night.
http://www.news.com.au/world/ukrainian-military-abandoning-bases-in-crimea-after-being-warned-they-are-now-enemy-combatants/story-fndir2ev-1226847573112

[cc3]

I don’t think he has the ‘right’ to seize it….but he has done it anyway, regardless of the consequences.  I don’t see his forces moving, unless he gets the deal he wants which probably isn't very likely.  I don’t see any outside countries caring enough to risk war over Crimea under these circumstances where much of Crimea is probably on Putin’s side or at least not against him. 


Fathertime!

So the US could seize, for example, Cuba, definitely within the US' geographic sphere of interest and it would be OK, because "outside countries" would not care enough to risk war and probably a majority of Cubans would wish to be a part of the US?

Morality has no place in large and powerful nations' international strategies?

[Anotherkiwi]

Morality has no place in large and powerful nations' international strategies?

Obviously not in Russia's case - certainly not at the moment..

[fathertime]

So the US could seize, for example, Cuba, definitely within the US' geographic sphere of interest and it would be OK, because "outside countries" would not care enough to risk war and probably a majority of Cubans would wish to be a part of the US?

Morality has no place in large and powerful nations' international strategies?

Maybe the USA could seize Cuba if we wanted to, but that would be a very different situation as far as I can see.  Here are a few reasons why (there must be a few more I’m not thinking of off the top of my head):
1. Cuba doesn’t have a long history with us like Crimea does with Russia. There are very few Americans living in Cuba and the official languages/customs are different. 
2.  Cuba does not have the leadership vacuum and discord that Ukraine currently has had. They are more or less one people, whereas Ukraine appears to be a land of at least 2 different peoples on the opposite end of the spectrum in some respects, with one side delighted Russia has intervened. 
3.  It seems that Russia doesn’t care much about their ‘reputation’ whereas we do, and I suspect our reputation would be tarnished forever in all of Central and South America (for starters) and that could affect us very negatively.
4.   Our citizens would probably not support invading Cuba whereas it appears the Russian people generally support Putin’s decision.
If invading another country was in our interest and we could get away with it without severe consequences, I am not sure we wouldn’t manufacture a ‘valid’ reason.   Instead we often get what we want from other countries by using financial pressure and ganging up.  I guess this is considered ‘civilized warfare’ nowadays and is an option that Russia doesn’t usually have.     
 
Thanks CC3 for posing that question.  It should create some fodder. 


Fathertime! 

[Faux Pas]

Maybe the USA could seize Cuba if we wanted to, but that would be a very different situation as far as I can see.  Here are a few reasons why (there must be a few more I’m not thinking of off the top of my head):
1. Cuba doesn’t have a long history with us like Crimea does with Russia. There are very few Americans living in Cuba and the official languages/customs are different. 
2.  Cuba does not have the leadership vacuum and discord that Ukraine currently has had. They are more or less one people, whereas Ukraine appears to be a land of at least 2 different peoples on the opposite end of the spectrum in some respects, with one side delighted Russia has intervened. 
3.  It seems that Russia doesn’t care much about their ‘reputation’ whereas we do, and I suspect our reputation would be tarnished forever in all of Central and South America (for starters) and that could affect us very negatively.
4.   Our citizens would probably not support invading Cuba whereas it appears the Russian people generally support Putin’s decision.
If invading another country was in our interest and we could get away with it without severe consequences, I am not sure we wouldn’t manufacture a ‘valid’ reason.   Instead we often get what we want from other countries by using financial pressure and ganging up.  I guess this is considered ‘civilized warfare’ nowadays and is an option that Russia doesn’t usually have.     
 
Thanks CC3 for posing that question.  It should create some fodder. 


Fathertime!

All immaterial semantics 

[JayH]

Maybe the USA could seize Cuba if we wanted to, but that would be a very different situation as far as I can see.  Here are a few reasons why (there must be a few more I’m not thinking of off the top of my head):
1. Cuba doesn’t have a long history with us like Crimea does with Russia. There are very few Americans living in Cuba and the official languages/customs are different.    IRRELEVANT
2.  Cuba does not have the leadership vacuum and discord that Ukraine currently has had. They are more or less one people, whereas Ukraine appears to be a land of at least 2 different peoples on the opposite end of the spectrum in some respects, with one side delighted Russia has intervened. NEITHER DID UKRAINE-IT JUST HAD NEW GOVERNMENT THAT WAS NOT GIVEN A CHANCE TO GET HOUSE IN ORDER
3.  It seems that Russia doesn’t care much about their ‘reputation’ whereas we do, and I suspect our reputation would be tarnished forever in all of Central and South America (for starters) and that could affect us very negatively.  THEY WILL CARE SOON ENOUGH IF THE CONSEQUENCES ARE DRIVEN HOME TO THEM
4.   Our citizens would probably not support invading Cuba whereas it appears the Russian people generally support Putin’s decision.     NOT CORRECT- PARTLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE INFO- AND POLLS SHOW 73% DO NOT SUPPORT
If invading another country was in our interest and we could get away with it without severe consequences, I am not sure we wouldn’t manufacture a ‘valid’ reason.   Instead we often get what we want from other countries by using financial pressure and ganging up.  I guess this is considered ‘civilized warfare’ nowadays and is an option that Russia doesn’t usually have.     
 
Thanks CC3 for posing that question.  It should create some fodder. 


Fathertime!

There can be no valid reason to invade another country-- in the process breaching many agreements.
A point you seem to miss entirely-- a large % of the population  of the Crimea itself-- want to be Ukrainian.
I would seriously urge you to re-consider your conclusions.

[JayH]

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/avakov-estimates-kurchenkos-business-activity-caused-state-1-billion-in-losses-338627.html


Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has accused fuel and energy tycoon Serhiy Kurchenko of causing the state $1 billion in damages through tax evasion and other schemes.

Avakov’s Facebook page states that Kurchenko, 28, and his fuel and energy VETEK conglomerate evaded $875 million in taxes and caused state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz to lose $200 million in revenue.

Kurchenko, many believe, is a proxy for assets belonging to ex-President Viktor Yanukovych and his inner-circle.

He denied the charges on VETEK’s official website: “I am an honest Ukrainian businessman who has always been investing in Ukraine.”

According to Avakov, four companies within VETEK imported oil products worth $2.7 billion with the aim of exporting the processed gasoline. They are Zovnishtransgaz, Petrol, Petrol-Forwarding and Armada-Plyus. However, the companies never exported the gasoline, and instead sold it on the domestic market. No customs duties or taxes were paid.

“During searches 13,000 tons of oil products have been expropriated, also accounting records and computer equipment. Odesa Oil Refinery is going through a revision,” wrote Avakov.

Eleven criminal investigations have been opened related to Kurchenko’s businesses in several Ukrainian regions. Kurchenko denied this. Investigators are trying to identify money legalization schemes earned on the sale of gasoline, according to Avakov.

On March 5, the European Union froze the assets of 18 former high-level officials and businessmen, including fugitive ex-President Viktor Yanukovych. Kurchenko was on the same for allegedly being close to Oleksandr Yanukovych, the ex-president’s older son.

In recent weeks, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk has accused Yanukovych and his inner-circle of absconding with up to $70 billion and leaving the state treasury virtually dry.

“I am surprised that I am mentioned in the list of people that the European Union is conducting limiting measures against,” stated Kurchenko. “But even more I am surprised with the formulation: ‘A person, who is a subject to investigation for participating in the crimes related to embezzlement of public funds and their illegal withdrawal out of Ukraine.’”

Reportedly, he left Ukraine long before Feb. 22, when Yanukovych’s regime was brought down. He currently is in Moscow, according to Komersant-Ukraine business daily.

On Feb. 24, journalists found approximately 30 trash bags filled with shredded VETEK company documents in a parking lot at Arena City entertainment center, where it once occupied to floors of office space. A team of investigative journalists has been working to restore these documents.

Korrespondent magazine estimates Kurchenko’s wealth at $2.4 billion. VETEK is a conglomerate which manages assets in energy, banking, media and sports. Odesa Oil Refinery, Kherson Oil Transshipment Complex, Brokbiznesbank, Real Bank, Ukrainian Media Holding and Metalist football club are its main holdings.

The company is an important player on the local gasoline and liquefied natural gas markets. VETEK has been purchasing almost all the liquid gas provided by state enterprise Ukrgazvydobuvannya through auctions over the last two years. Kurchenko furthermore owns several entities abroad, such as the Sparschwein gas station chain in Germany.

Once allegedly benefiting from Viktor Yanukovych’s protection, he is now selling his assets en masse since the change in government does not leave much room for his business schemes. Kurchenko is in negotiations with Rosneft, Russia’s oil giant, to sell the Odesa Oil Refinery that is being investigated by police. Media reports say there are several bidders for his media holding, which includes Forbes Ukraine, among businessmen close to the current government. There are serious doubts Kurchenko will be able to sell these entities at least at the rate of their acquisition cost which is approximately $250 million for the Odesa Oil Refinery and $360-400 million for UMH.

Kurchenko will also have problems trying to sell his Brokbiznesbank and Real Bank, both of which the central bank has categorized as insolvent and where it installed provisional management on March 3.

[JayH]

March 7, 2014, 12:25 a.m. | Business — by Ivan Verstyuk


The overthrow  of Viktor Yanukovych as president on Feb. 22 brought renewed talk that the state might begin to re-nationalize the state enterprises it sold to a small group of insiders at fire-sale prices.

The State Property Fund of Ukraine, the government body in charge of privatizing state-owned assets, has been heavily criticized by the business community and experts for setting highly restrictive conditions at auctions. Historically, this meant that a very limited number of bidders, some of whom with clear affiliations to politicians in power, got their hands on prized assets. Moreover, the fixed competition led to assets being sold at rock-bottom prices.

“Businesses linked to Viktor Fedorovych (Yanukovych) benefited greatly from the political regime. We don’t know, some of it may belong to legitimate companies. However, it is necessary to hold a transparent audit. Nationalization may take place,” Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting director Igor Burakovsky told the Kyiv Post.

The nation’s richest billionaire Rinat Akhmetov and his partners acquired a substantial amount of state energy assets under Yanukovych’s rule. Akhmetov also purchased Ukrtelecom, the country’s leading telecommunications provider, in June 2013. Another tycoon, Dmytro Firtash, has also privatized a number of energy and chemical assets. Most of these auctions obviously lacked competition, especially from the foreign investors’ side.

The State Property Fund of Ukraine declined comment to the Kyiv Post for this story.
The fund’s chairman, Oleksandr Ryabchenko, is not sure whether he will keep his job, State Property Fund of Ukraine press secretary Nina Yavorska said. “It is not a good time for such an interview,” she added.

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk on March 3 declared that there would be no re-privatization, referring to the trouble that ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s government had in re-privatizing Kryvorizhstal in 2005. The previous government under ex-President Leonid Kuchma had first sold the nation’s largest steel mill for $800 million to Akhmetov and Viktor Pinchuk, the president’s son-in-law. Then Tymoshenko’s government took it back and re-sold it for $4.8 billion to a foreign investor.
Appointing oligarchs Igor Kolomoisky and Serhiy Taruta as governors of Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk, respectively, is a sign that the current government is unwilling to confront the nation’s business titans, at least not at this point.

But re-privatization could scare off investors who would have no reason to believe that the assets won’t be taken back again at a later time said Vasyl Yurchyshyn, a leading economic analyst for Razumkov Center. “And if re-privatization ultimately happens, it should only involve the assets privatized within a three-year period or so from now,” he emphasized.

Oleksandr Bondar of the Svoboda party is considered a top candidate for chairing the SPFU, though he has not been officially nominated. A key supporter of re-privatization, he had already managed the fund in 1998-2003.

A policy of increasing competition, reducing monopolies and the hoarding of capital offshore may become a reason for re-privatization, according to Bondar. One may not hold more than a 25 percent stake in an enterprise that has a monopoly position on the market, the Svoboda party member’s project implies. He also proposed an amnesty program for money that is kept offshore. He promised not to investigate the origin of offshore money if 50 percent of what is held abroad is repatriated into state coffers.

The list of assets slated for privatization this year includes several major enterprises: turbine producer Turboatom, railcar builder Azovmash, and chemical factories Sumykhimprom and Odesa Portside Plant. Minority stakes in Zasyadko Coal Mine, Cherkasyoblenergo, Donetskoblenergo, Donbasenergo and Sumyoblenergo are up for sale too. Ex-Prime Minister Mykola Azarov’s government expected to earn as much as Hr 19.4 billion from privatization this year, though he has been known for making overly optimistic plans in the past.

However, on Feb. 25 SPFU cancelled privatization auctions set to be held at the stock markets. On March 4 Interfax news agency, citing its own sources, reported that the SPFU will cancel all privatization plans for 2014.

Meanwhile, lawmakers Kseniya Lyapina from Batkivshchyna Party and Iryna Gorina of the Party of Regions have offered to place privatization under the control of the legislature. They registered a law bill regulating this issue on Feb. 28.

Still, the sale of state-owned assets would move forward, said Yatseniuk, since he believes that the state cannot manage large assets effectively and quite frankly the government needs the money. Moreover, the incumbent prime minister stands for privatizing Naftogaz, the oil and gas giant whose deficits have been a constant headache for the government. Generally, Yatseniuk plans to sell all the state’s possessions in the energy sector.

Timing is also paramount, especially on whether 2014 is the right time for a massive auction of state-owned assets. “I would freeze up the privatization process for now since the decline in economic activity and political uncertainty do not favor it,” said Burakovsky of the Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting.

[JayH]

A couple of posts about internal government issues that the new government is addressing. The charter now for Ukraine is to get some real values in it's government on all issues.
These are certainly areas to address-- for all the naysayers that say nothing will change-these are strong indications that change is happening. Of course-this is a hazardous path-- but the good people of Ukraine want it--they are demanding it and many gave their lives for it.
The truly regretable aspect is the shadow of the former super power -Russia- who took away from the people of Ukraine a high point of it's short democracy-- and plunged Ukraine to never known depths of despair.Russian interference in internal Ukrainian affairs is abhorrent enough-but the invasion of Ukrainian sovereign territory is and outrageous disgrace.
Ironically it may have the reverse intent of Putin-- Ukrainians are uniting as Ukrainians and rejecting Russian influence-and let's hope that trend accelerates further.
The new Ukrainian government had enough on it's plate with having to deal with an invasion and a threatened further invasion.